Medium Support Vehicle System

[dapaterson]

Thanks for the heads up! Question. What is wrong with the MSVS Milcot? I know that the AHSVS is based very heavily on a civilian truck, so I don't know why the MSVS Milcot can't be modified to fulfill the role of the MSVS SMP?

There's a number of reasons - the first and most significant is that we didn't scope the MSVS MilCOTS for armour.  There's no (easy) way to armour it, and I'm not certain what an improvised armour system would do to its characteristics (loss of range, payload etc).  The SMP variant was explicitly defined to require optional add-on armour.

For permissive environments, the MSVS MilCOTS is fine.  Once there's an enemy messing around in rear areas or over lines of communications, it's less appealing.

 

[Hurricane]

Thanks for the heads up! Question. What is wrong with the MSVS Milcot? I know that the AHSVS is based very heavily on a civilian truck, so I don't know why the MSVS Milcot can't be modified to fulfill the role of the MSVS SMP?

Having driven both the AHSVS and MSVS Milcot, there is NO comparison. An AHSVS can be buried up to its fenders in thick sandy mud, and still back out of it. The MSVS Milcot cannot even drive through 4 inches of sand without getting stuck even with 6x6 engaged. The fact is, the Milcots version of the MSVS was a crutch to replace the badly worn MLVW fleet for domestic use only. What I find very interesting is that MGen. Ferron just visited us a few days ago and assured us that the procurement was continuing. Guess he was also misinformed.

 

[Infanteer]

Here is how you do an Army mobility project.

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/Project-LAND-121

 

[Hurricane]

That vehicle reminds me of an armadillo.

 

[Infanteer]

It's not the actual vehicle, but the fact that the project rolled all mobility capabilies into a single project.  We insist on a small project to replace capability A1 with project X, and another project to replace capability A2 with project Y, which is competely different.  Meanwhile, a third project to replace capability A3 falls through, so we are forced to use X, Y, and A3, creating 3 times the requirement for parts, trained maintainers and operators, etc, etc.

 

[dapaterson]

And from today's Chronicly Horrible, a good indication that the cancellation was very out of the blue for everyone:

At a defence conference in Calgary last Tuesday, I attended a presentation by Jake Jacobson, the chief of staff (materiel) at DND. His seminar was entitled, Defence Procurement Works.

The gist of his message was that the media just don't get it. To emphasize just how swimmingly things were going, Jacobson referred to the fact that in a little over 24 hours, the bids were closing on the standard-military-pattern truck competition. He said it was another good news story that would not get any media coverage.

Enjoy your retirement, Jake.

Scott Taylor is editor of Esprit de Corps.

Full article: http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/117638-taylor-politicians-pass-buck-while-bureaucrats-don-t-acknowledge-problems

 

[Hurricane]

It's not the actual vehicle, but the fact that the project rolled all mobility capabilities into a single project.  We insist on a small project to replace capability A1 with project X, and another project to replace capability A2 with project Y, which is completely different.  Meanwhile, a third project to replace capability A3 falls through, so we are forced to use X, Y, and A3, creating 3 times the requirement for parts, trained maintainers and operators, etc, etc.

I would be very convenient if we were to have a similar platform for multiple roles. IE. Same design just on a smaller/larger scale depending on the usage. Much like the new Ford Police Interceptor where both the Sedan and SUV version are virtually identical when it comes to drivetrain and suspension. Just to use the HLVW and SHLVW as an example. Same components, just one has a larger engine and upgraded transfer case, and minor suspension differences. But as far as electrical, body, and everyday driving they are identical.

Something that would be ideal, however I would think unfeasible would be to have the same company produce all of our SMP fleet, at least for the logistic vehicles. Fighting vehicles are obviously role defined. Not to say they are the best choice or not,  but I will use Oshkosh for an example. The Americans have Oshkosh heavy lift, medium lift, the MRAP, and I'm sure a few others I do not know about.

Would the treasury board like that? Heck no. Will it ever happen, probably not. Is it possible to merge 2 or 3 vehicle requirements into one MREX bid?

 

[PuckChaser]

Is it possible to merge 2 or 3 vehicle requirements into one MREX bid?

Probably not possible with the way our current procurement system works. Though, it would be a great solution to have common parts across various vehicle types and cost-effective for our comparatively small force.

 

[Infanteer]

How about something like this.  It could potentially replace the:

1.  Coyote/TAPV
2.  RG-31/TAPV
3.  MLVW
4.  LSVW
5.  Bison CP
6.  Husky MRT
7.  Bison Amb
8.  EROC vehicle suite

There is even a "jeep" version as a utility vehicle.

Too bad it lost out in the TAPV project.

 

[Hurricane]

Probably not possible with the way our current procurement system works. Though, it would be a great solution to have common parts across various vehicle types and cost-effective for our comparatively small force.

No doubt, as well as minimal cross training for Vehicle Tech's on the various versions of the vehicles.

 

[Hurricane]

How about something like this.  It could potentially replace the:

1.  Coyote/TAPV
2.  RG-31/TAPV
3.  MLVW
4.  LSVW
5.  Bison CP
6.  Husky MRT
7.  Bison Amb
8.  EROC vehicle suite

There is even a "jeep" version as a utility vehicle.

Too bad it lost out in the TAPV project.

The only one of those vehicles I would have to disagree on is the MLVW. It would need a slightly longer cargo bed, after all the ML is a Logistics vehicle. From the looks of that, it could only carry 4 full sized pallats. If there was a dual rear axle variant with an extended cargo bed, that would be ideal for the MLVW replacement.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I have heard that the Bushmaster did not do as well as expected. For the role intended why not just tag onto this production run. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/FMTV-2010-2015-Oshkosh-Wins-The-Re-Compete-05744/

 

[Kirkhill]

How about an Oshkosh 6x6 Bushmaster (cut back the passenger compartment and turn it into a flatbed/TCV/PLS/MHC conversion)?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17147090/Oshkosh-Bushmaster-2008

Also this

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?171-Potential-Army-Trucks-Finalise-Testing-(Land-121)&p=905&viewfull=1#post905

And this

http://www.w54.biz/showthread.php?171-Potential-Army-Trucks-Finalise-Testing-(Land-121)&p=930&viewfull=1#post930

 

[a_majoor]

Well since the MLVW replacement has been put off, I suppose we can "blue sky" a bit. Here is an idea I raised a while ago using the SEP serial electric vehicle as inspiration. Notice we could get modularity, commonality, production line economies of scale and even armour protection going this way.

Even without the serial electric drive, a variation of the idea may still be possible. Uprated motors using turbochargers for the heavier versions, and perhaps some form of hydrophumatic suspension to adapt to different platform size/loading would provide a wide range of vehicles from a basic set of building blocks.

 

[McG]

At the very least, while waiting to get the SMP project back on rails, we can provide a name to the MilCOTS truck delivered already.  Since the second "S" in the project name was supposed to reflect that we were buying both trucks an ancilary equipment, by refering to the actual truck as "MSVS" we look like fools who neither understand meanings behind words nor remember why we chose those words when projects finally deliver.

 

[Journeyman]

Merely calling the truck an MSVS makes us "look like fools"? You're ovulating, aren't you. 

 

[Armynewsguy]

At the very least, while waiting to get the SMP project back on rails, we can provide a name to the MilCOTS truck delivered already.  Since the second "S" in the project name was supposed to reflect that we were buying both trucks an ancilary equipment, by refering to the actual truck as "MSVS" we look like fools who neither understand meanings behind words nor remember why we chose those words when projects finally deliver.

M – medium – 2 >10 Tonnes
S – support – B vehicle used for support
V- vehicle – nuff said
S – system - A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.(The free dictionary.com)

SMP – I think we know that one

I don’t see the problem.  ;D

 

[cupper]

M – medium – 2 >10 Tonnes
S – support – B vehicle used for support
V- vehicle – nuff said
S – system - A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole.(The free dictionary.com)

SMP – I think we know that one

I don’t see the problem.  ;D

But since a vehicle is a group of interdependent, interrelated and interacting components which form a more complex whole, isn't the second "S" redundant?  >

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A purchase that does not include the word "system" is not sexy enough, one must have the required number of buzzwords in the power point presentation to be noticed.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Conservative government shut down a project to buy new army trucks because the Defence Department tried to spend more than $300 million without permission, government, military and industry officials have told the Ottawa Citizen.

Link

McG has a useful point.

Now, with the programme 300 MCAD over budget, the programme can be folded and the SMP requirement blended into the LVM programme and relaunched as the LVM(M) to go along with the LVM (H) and LVM (L) programmes.

By the way... who decided there was enough change in the kitty to buy extra 500 MSVS-MilCOTS in the early stages of this project?